“THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.”

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1019, 5 November 1912, Page 3

“THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.”

The above is the title of an article written by Mr F. W. Frauklaud, and read to the members of the C.E.M.S., in the parish of All Saints, Foxtou, on October 24th. As one who was present on that occasion, it is my wish to write a few lines, not in the spirit of criticism, but in sincere appreciation and thankfulness to Mr Fraukland for his most excellent and instructive lecture. It is certainly clear that the interest in the synoptic problem centres round the question of Sources. Most of our modern scholars accept the documentary rather than the oral theory; although in a real sense they recognise the influence of Oral tradition. Professor Peake says : Critics are agreed that the chief Sources for our first and third Gospel are 'the lost Cogia of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark in its present or some very similar form. ’ ’ Others, again, suggest lesser Sources.

Schliemacher mentions what he calls a Memoir of John the Baptist, while Dr Wright hold* the opinion that there were certain written notes made by catechists for teaching their converts. Mr Franklaud, in h!s scholarly article, shares with some of the most renowned of modern professors the theory that there were three editions ot what is known as the Marcan Document, and that St. Matthew had before him the first when he wrote bis Gospel, and that St.'-Lttke had the second, and the third is practically, or very nearly, that which we now know as the "Gospel according to StMark.” The first two editions were lost, but in a very true seuse live, in the Gospels attributed to St. Matthew and St. Luke. In studying minutely the first three Gospels, there appears to be only one conclusion, and it is, that both ■’St. Matlhew'and St. Luke derive from St. Mark the historical framework of their Gospels. St. Mark, we know, was the disciple and secretary ot St. Peter, and no doubt he wrote down, at the dictation of the Great Apostle, most of bis Gospel history. In reading through" St. Matthew’s "Gospel, we find certain sections of it taken from the Marcan Document, and only in the non-Marcan matter do we see the original St. Matthew. On analysis we find that St. Matthew’s C -pc 1 contains 655 verses of Marcan actions and 416 verses of unu-Marcan. This plainly shows tlaat Mr Frankland is correct in his theory that’St. Matthew "had before him some source or document when he wrote his Gospel. On further investigation we find that St. Matthew and St. Luke are independent of one another, and, it can be safely said, that St. Matthew knew nothing ot St. Luke’s Gospel when he wrote his own, or that St. Luke was cognisant of St. Matthew’s when be wrote his—yet by internal evidence we find both these writers drew from a common source. When we take this Common Source, which modern research calls the Marcan Document, we find that the authors of our first and third Gospels condense, revise, and omit portions of it to suit themselves, but they do not change the order. The little variations, and particularly the changes in phases, m.ay be due to the fact, as Mr Frankland so ably puts it, that St. -Maithefw.had before him the first edition and 'St. Luke the second. In the non-Marcan matter of both these evangelists, we find an absolute independence and a difference in style, owing to the fact that the evangelists were recording what appealed to them of the greatest interest in the life of our Lord—and what was their original contribution to the world. Space does not allow me to go further into this most interesting subject, but I venture to predict that Mr Frankland’s lecture will find its way into the great universities of the world and will be another link in the chain of evidence to arrive at the solution of this difficult problem.